That's the wrong level: NFTs are like the receipt showing you paid money, not the artwork itself. Even a forged artwork can be enjoyable to look at, although you'll probably wish you'd paid less, but it's unlikely that anyone is going to want to hang the receipt on the wall.

>but it's unlikely that anyone is going to want to hang the receipt on the wall.

You're right that rich people probably aren't going to be hanging receipts next to their original paintings, but they certainly will bring up the fact that it's an original at every possible opportunity. The "original-ness" is definitely where all the value is coming from, whether from owning the original painting, or the "original" NFT.

But you own the painting. With the NFT, all you have is a URL pointing to a hosting service which anyone else can access and you have to keep paying if you want it to stay online.

>But you own the painting

But you still paid a few million more for the original painting, even though it's virtually indistinguishable from a replica. It's more helpful to think of an original painting as a bundle of two things:

Original painting = thing that looks like a painting + bragging rights

An NFT is just the "bragging rights" part of the original painting, and the JPG that anyone can access is the "thing that looks like a painting ".